Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Councils · On the Authority of Councils, Book I
Chapter 18: That Bishops in Councils Are Not Counsellors but Judges
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Conciliis (De Conciliorum Auctoritate), On Councils, Book I (of the controversy On Councils and the Church). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
There follows the last question, on the form of Councils, which yet will be twofold. For, first, it occurs to be explained whether Councils have the form of a judgment, or only of an inquiry. Secondly, this being determined — that they have the form of a judgment — what ought to be the order among the judges. For as in a body the form is called the figure, or the order of all the members set each in its place, so in an assembly of men the form is called a certain order by which he presides who ought to preside, and he is subject who ought to be subject. The first part of the question, then, is: whether a Council is a true judgment, and the Bishops true judges, so that we must stand to their sentence because they so determined — in the way that one stands to the sentence of the Praetor in political causes; or whether it is only a certain inquiry, and the decree of the Council avails only as much as its reason avails — in the way we speak of the decisions of Doctors, which they make either in the schools or in their commentaries.
The heretics of this time almost all agree in this, that a Council is nothing but an inquiry, and that Christ alone, and His written word, has the decisive vote; and therefore they say that the number of votes is not to be regarded, and that often one who brings Scripture for himself is more to be followed than the whole rest of the Council. And thence they also deduce that it is lawful for anyone to examine the decrees of the Council, and to receive or not receive them as he will. So Luther teaches, in the assertion of article 29, and in Cochlaeus in the five hundred articles, article 115. The same Calvin will have, Book 4 chapter 9 § 8 of the Institutes. The same Brentius writes in the Confession of Wittenberg, chapter on Scripture and chapter on Councils. Kemnitz too, in his Examination of the fourth session of the Council of Trent, everywhere reproves the Catholics for attributing to Bishops a praetorian authority of judging of controversies. Finally, the little book of the Protestants, where they explain the causes why they did not come to the Council, expressly teaches that men ought not to come together in a Council that questions may be defined by votes and suffrages, but that among so many someone may be found who from Scripture shows what is to be followed, and that such a one is to be preferred to a most numerous Council, even though it exceeded the number of the sands. By this opinion the heretics show how little they esteem Councils, and that they truly desire nothing else than that questions be never ended. See more in this same book, chapter 20.
We, then, say that the assembly of Bishops in legitimate Councils is a true assembly of Judges, and that their decrees and laws are necessarily to be followed. It is proved, first, by three Scriptures. The first is Deuteronomy 17, where those who have doubts are commanded to have recourse to the Councils of the Priests, and: He that will not obey their sentence, let him be put to death. The second, Matthew 18: If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican. For this place, although it admit various explanations, yet, since a legitimate Council by the consent of all may most properly be called the Church, this explanation can in no way be rejected, by which we assert that the Lord commanded us to obey the sentence of a legitimate Council. The third, Acts 15 and 16, where Paul, passing through various cities, commanded them to keep the dogmas which had been decreed by the Apostles in the Council of Jerusalem. Of which Council three things are to be noted.
The first is that in that Council the question was defined not from the Scriptures, but by the votes of the Apostles. For the question was not, as the adversaries feign, whether faith alone justifies, but whether circumcision and the other legal ceremonies were necessary for Christians. Which is manifestly gathered both from the occasion of the Synod, of which Saint Luke speaks thus, Acts 15: There arose some of the sect of the Pharisees that believed, saying: They must be circumcised, and be commanded to observe the law of Moses. And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter, etc.; and from the letter of the Council, in which nothing is commanded but abstinence from blood, from things strangled, and from things offered to idols, and the Gentiles are freed from all the other Jewish ceremonies. But certainly none of these was had in the Scriptures; for where, I ask, was it written that the Gentiles should not keep the legal observances, except the command of abstinence from blood, things strangled, and things offered to idols?
The second thing to be noted is that the sentence of the Apostles was not left to the examination of the disciples, but it was simply commanded that they obey, as is most clearly established from the places cited, Acts 15 and 16. Wherefore the adversaries, who will have the sentence of Councils examined by every private man, most manifestly fight with Scripture. The third is that the definition of the Apostolic Council was a true law binding in conscience. Of which matter we discoursed above in the fourth book on the Pontiff. And Luke shows this well enough, when he calls them now precepts, now decrees, and dogmas.
Secondly, it is proved from the Councils themselves; for all Councils pronounce anathema against those who do not obey; they call their decrees canons, or Ecclesiastical laws; when they subscribe, the Bishops say: “I, N., defining, have subscribed.” Moreover in the Council of Chalcedon, act 4, when ten Bishops of Egypt would not acquiesce in the judgment of the greater part, they were held for heretics. All which are most plain arguments that Councils are true judgments.
It is proved, thirdly; for if in Councils the business were done not by votes but only by disputations, it would be wrongly done that Bishops alone pass sentence, since the office of disputing belongs to learned men, whether they be Bishops or not — the contrary of which we have already shown above. In vain too would some rude and simple Bishops be called, such as Rufinus writes there were some in the Council of Nicaea, Book 10 of the history chapter 3. Add that the Protestants in that little book of theirs openly fight with themselves; for in that book they teach that Laymen too ought to have a decisive vote with the Bishops, and there a little after they say that in Councils nothing ought to be defined by the multitude of votes, but only by the testimonies of Scripture. Many other things we will bring forward later, when we shall dispute whether Councils can err.
But they object the example of Paphnutius, who, in Socrates Book 1 chapter 8 and Sozomen Book 1 chapter 22, alone [resisted] the whole Council of Nicaea when it wished to forbid Priests the use of wives. [So Luther,] article 113 of the five hundred, in Cochlaeus in the Seven-Headed, chapter 34: “It is an insane thing,” he says, “that Councils wish to conclude and determine what is to be believed, when often there is no man there who has smelt even a little of the divine Spirit — as happened in the Council of Nicaea, where they treated and wished to make laws on the Ecclesiastical state, that they should not be in Matrimony. There all were now false; then there came forward one man only, Paphnutius, and refuted this whole thing, and said: Not so, this is not Christian; then the whole Council had to desist from that conclusion.”
I answer, first, that this narration is uncertain, since the more ancient writers do not mention it — Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Rufinus, etc. Secondly, if the narration be true, Paphnutius resisted before the definition of the Council, as the authors themselves testify, and accordingly this example is not to the purpose. Thirdly I say that Paphnutius did not allege Scripture, but contended only by his own authority, and therefore, by the judgment of the adversaries, ought not to have been heard. Fourthly I add that Paphnutius only desired that the use of wives be not forbidden to those who had them; yet he exhorted the Synod severely to forbid Priests and Monks to take wives after sacred Ordination or Profession, as Socrates and Sozomen testify in the same place. From which it is a wonder if the Lutherans be not confounded, who against the opinion of Paphnutius take wives, even though they were Monks and Priests. I add lastly that the Council decreed plainly the contrary of what these relate from Paphnutius. For it decreed, canon 3, that in the houses of Priests there be no women except a mother, sister, or aunt. Whence Epiphanius, heresy 59, says that it is against the canons that a Priest, or Deacon, or Subdeacon should beget children. Wherefore Luther, after his manner fighting with himself, in his book on Councils, part 1, openly says that the Council of Nicaea forbade Priests the use of wives, and that he does not understand the Holy Spirit in that Council, since it forbids both castration and the company of women.
Secondly, some Catholics object: If all the Bishops were Judges, the Pontiff, who presides over the Council, would be bound in making decrees to follow the greater part of the Bishops; but this is false, since Damasus annulled the acts of the Council of Ariminum, to which the greater part of the Bishops had consented, as is plain from the letter of Damasus to the Bishops of Illyricum; and Leo annulled a certain decree of the Council of Chalcedon, to which also the greater part of the Council had assented, as Leo himself testifies, letters 53, 54, and 55.
I answer, first, that perhaps it has never yet happened that the Pontiff followed the lesser part in a Council, when, fraud and deceit removed, they spoke their opinions. Which I say on account of the Councils of Ariminum and Chalcedon, which were not free of fraud; for that in the Council of Ariminum the Catholics were deceived by the obscurity of a Greek word, Rufinus testifies, Book 10 chapter 21; and that in Chalcedon there was fraud is plain from act 16 of that Council, where the Vicars of the Roman Pontiff complain that that decree had been fraudulently made in their absence. I say, secondly, that the President of the Council, as President, ought to follow, in forming the decree, the greater part of the votes; yet the Pontiff, not as President but as the supreme Prince of the Church, can retract that judgment; and consequently, if he himself be President of the Council, he can, not as President but as supreme Prince, not follow the greater part — just as in temporal judgments the President constituted by the King ought to follow the greater part of the Judges, yet the King, as Superior, can annul the whole judgment. And this has place chiefly in the Pontiff, whose it is to confirm and direct his brethren, and for this he has the assistance of the Holy Spirit, lest he err, according to that of Luke 22: I have prayed for thee, etc. See John of Torquemada, Book 3 chapters 63 and 64, and Cano, Book 5 chapter 5, question 2.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVIII. Episcopos in Conciliis non Consiliarios , sed Ju¬ dices esse. Sequitur postrema quaestio de forma Con¬ ciliorum, quae tamen bipartita erit. Primo namque explicandum occurrit , an Concilia habeant formam judicii, an tantum inquisi¬ tionis. Secundo, hoc definito, quod habeant formam judicii, quis debeat esse ordo inter judices ; ut enim in corpore forma dicitur figura , sive ordo omnium membrorum suo loco positorum, ita in coetu hominum forma dicitur ordo quidam, quo praeest , qui debet praeesse, subest, qui debet subesse. Est ergo prima pars quaestionis : An Concilium sit verum judicium, et Episcopi veri judices, ita ut standum sit eorum sententiae, quia ipsi sic statuerunt, quomodo statur sententiae Praetoris in causis politicis : an vero tantum sit inquisitio quaedam , et tantum valeat de¬ cretum Concilii , quantum valet ejus ratio : quomodo loquimur de decisionibus Docto¬ rum, quas vel in scolis, vel in suis commen¬ tariis faciunt. Haeretici hujus temporis in hoc fere om¬ nes conveniunt, quod Concilium non sit, nisi inquisitio, et quod solus Christus, et verbum ejus scriptum habeat suffragium decisivum, et ideo dicunt, non esse attendendum nume¬ rum suffragiorum , et saepe magis sequen¬ dum unum, qui pro se Scripturam adferat, quam totum reliquum Concilium. Et inde etiam deducunt, licere unicuique examinare decreta Concilii, et recipere, vel non recipe¬ re, ut voluerit. Ita Lutherus docet in asser¬ tione artic. 29 , et apud Cochleeum in quin¬ gentis articulis art. 115. Idem vult Calvinus libi IV, cap. 9, §. 8. Institut. Idem scribit Brentius in Confessione Wirtembergica , c. de Scriptura, et c. de Conciliis. Kemnitius quoque in Examine IV. sess. Concilii Triden- tini, passim Catholicos reprehendit, quod tribuant Episcopis praetoriam auctoritatem judicandi dc controversiis. Denique, libellus Protestandum, ubi ex- plicant causa?? cur ad Concilium non vene¬ rint, diserte docet, non debere in Concilio conveniri, ut votis et suffragiis quaestiones definiantur, sed ut inter tam multos aliquis reperiatur, qui ex Scriptura ostendat, quid sequendum sit, et aliquem talem praeponen¬ dum Concilio numerosissimo, etiamsi arena¬ rum numerum vinceret. Hac sententia os¬ tendunt haeretici, quam parvi faciant Conci¬ lia, et quod vere nihil aliud cupiant, quam quaestiones nunquam finiri. Vide plura in hoc eodem libro cap. 20. Nos ergo dicimus, confessum Episcopo¬ rum in Conciliis legitimis esse verum Judi¬ cum confessum, et eorum decreta et leges necessario sequendas. Probatur primo tri¬ bus Scripturis. Prima est Deuter. XVII ubi jubentur, qui dubia habent, recurrere ad Sacerdotum Concilia, et : Qui non obedierit eo¬ rum sententice , morte condemnetur. Secunda Matth. XVIII : Si Ecclesiam non audierit , sit tibi velut Ethnicus , et Publicanus (I). Hic enim locus, etsi varias explicationes admit¬ tat, tamen cum Concilium legitimum om¬ nium consensu maxime proprie dici possit Ecclesia, non potest ullo modo rejici haec explicatio, qua asserimus, Dominum jussisse ut sententiae legitimi Concilii obediamus. Tertia Act. XV et XVI, ubi Paulus pertran- siens civitates varias, praecipiebat eis custo¬ dire dogmata, quae erant decreta ab Apos¬ tolis in Concilio Hierosolymitano. De quo Concilio tria notanda sunt. Primum est , in eo Concilio non ex Scrip¬ turis, sed ad suffragia Apostolorum definitam esse quaestionem. Non enim quaestio erat, ut adversarii fingunt , an sola fides justificet, sed an circumcisio, et caeterae legales caere¬ moniae essent necessariaeChristianis. Id quod manifeste colligitur tum ex occasione Syno¬ di, de qua sic loquitur S. Lucas, Act XV : Surrexerunt quidam de hceresi Pharisceorum, qui crediderunt , dicentes : Quia oportet circum¬ cidi eos , praecipere quoque servare legem Moy¬ si. Conveneruntque Apostoli et seniores videre de verbo hoc etc. (2). Tum ex epistola Conci¬ lii, in qua nihil mandatur, nisi abstinentia a sanguine, suffocato, et immolatitiis , et libe¬ rantur Gentes ab omnibus aliis Judaicis cae¬ remoniis, Certe autem nihil horum in Scrip¬ turis habebatur; ubi enim, quaeso, scriptum erat, ut Gentes non servarent legalia, excep¬ to, mandato de abstinentia a sanguine, suf¬ focato, et immolatiiiis ? Alterum est notandum, Apostolorum sen¬ tentiam non fuisse permissam examini dis¬ cipulorum, sed simpliciter imperatum fuisse, ut obedirent, ut clarissime constat ex locis citatis Act. XV et XVI, quare adversarii, qui Conciliorum sententiam examinari volunt ab unoquoque homine privato , cum Scriptura manifestissime pugnant. Tertium est, Concilii Apostolici definitio¬ nem, veram legem fuisse obligantem in con¬ scientia. De qua re supra disseruimus in quarto libro de Pontifice. Et sane id satis Lucas ostendit cum modo praecepta, modo decreta, et dogmata appellat. Secundo, probatur ex ipsis Conciliis; nam Concilia omnia dicunt anathema non obtem¬ perantibus ; vocant sua decreta canones, sive leges Ecclesiasticas , cum subscribunt, Episcopi dicunt : Ego N. definiens subscripsi. Praeterea in Concilio Chalcedonensi, act. 4. cum decem Episcopi iEgypti nollent ac¬ quiescere, judicio majoris partis, pro haere¬ ticis habebantur. Quae omnia sunt apertis¬ sima argumenta, quod Concilia sint vera ju¬ dicia. Probatur tertio ; nam si non esset in Con¬ ciliis agendum suffragiis, sed disputationi¬ bus tantum, perperam fieret, ut soli Epis¬ copi sententiam ferrent, cum munus dispu¬ tandi sit hominum eruditorum , sive sint Episcopi, sive non. Cujus contrarium jam supra ostendimus. Frustra etiam vocarentur Episcopi aliqui rudes, et simplices, quales aliquos fuisse in Concilio Nicaeno scribit Ruf- finus lib. X hist. cap. 3. Adde, quod Protes- tantes in illo suo libello aperte secum pug¬ nant ; nam in eo libello docent, debere etiam Laicos cum Episcopis habere suffragium de- cisivum ; et ibidem paulo post dicunt , non debere in Conciliis aliquid definiri ex multi¬ tudine suffragiorum, sed tantum ex testimo¬ niis Scripturarum. Multa aliaadferemus pos¬ tea, cum disputabimus , an Concilia possint errare ? At objiciunt exemplum Paphnutii, qui apud Socratem lib. I, cap. 8. et Sozomenum lib. I, cap. 22. toti Concilio Nicaeno volenti prohibere Sacerdotibus usum uxorum, solus 113. ex quingentis, apud Cochlaeum in sep¬ ti cipite, cap. 34 : « Res, inquit, est insana, quod Concilia concludere et statuere volunt, ( 1 ) Deut. X\ II, 12; Matth. XVIII, 17. — (2j Act. XV, 5 et seq. quid credendum sit ; cum saepe nullus vir ibi sit, qui divinum Spiritum, vel modicum ol¬ fecerit, sicut contigit in Concilio Nicaeno, ubi tractabant et volebant leges condere super statu Ecclesiastico, ne essent in Matrimonio. Ibi jam omnes erant falsi; tunc procedebat unus tantum homo Paphnutius , et refutavit hoc totum, dixit : Non ita, hoc non estChris- tianum, tunc totum Concilium oportuit ab ista conclusione desistere. '> Respondeo Primo : incertam esse hanc narrationem, cum ejus non meminerint an¬ tiquiores, Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Ruffinus etc. Secundo , si vera sit narratio, Paphnutium ante definitionem Concilii res¬ titisse, ut ipsimet auctores testantur, pro¬ inde hoc exemplum non esse ad propositum. Tertio dico, Paphnutium non allegasse Scrip¬ turam, sed solum auctoritate sua conten¬ disse, et idcirco, judicio adversariorum, non debuisse audiri. Quarto addo , Paphnutium solum cupivisse, non interdici usum uxorum iis, qui eas habebant ; tamen hortatum esse Synodum, ut severe interdiceret Sacerdoti¬ bus et Monachis , ne post sacram Ordinatio¬ nem, vel Professionem uxores ducerent, ut ibidem Socrates et Sozomenus testantur. Ex quo mirum est, si non confundantur Luthe- rani, qui contra Paphnutii sententiam uxo¬ res ducunt, etiamsi Monachi et Sacerdotes fuerint. Addo postremo, Concilium statuisse plane contrarium ejus, quod isti ex Paphnutio re¬ ferunt. Nam statuit can. 3. ne in domibus Sacerdotum sint ullse feminee , praeter ma¬ trem, sororem vel amitam. Unde Epipha¬ nius haeresi 59, dicit, esse contra canones ut Sacerdos, aut Diaconus, vel Subdiaconus li¬ beros gignat. Quocirca Lutherus more suo secum pugnans, in lib. de Conciliis parte pri¬ ma, aperte dicit : Concilium Nicaenum pro¬ hibuisse Sacerdotibus usum uxorum , ac se non intelligere Spiritum sanctum in eo Con¬ cilio, cura, et castrationem prohibeat, et contubernium fceminarum. Objiciunt secundo aliqui Catholici ; Si om¬ nes Episcopi essent Judices, teneretur Ponti¬ fex, qui Concilio praesidet in decretis facien¬ dis sequi majorem partem Episcoporum; at falsum est, cum Damasus irritaverit acta Concilii Ariminensis quibus major pars Epis¬ coporum consenserat, ut patet ex epist. Da- masi ad Episcopos Illyrici, et Leo irritaverit quoddam decretum Concilii Chalcedonensis, cui etiam major pars Concilii assenserat, ut ipse Leo testatur epist. 53, 54 et 55. Respondeo primo, nunquam fortasse ad¬ huc accidisse, ut Pontifex sequeretur mino¬ rem partem in Concilio, quando remota fraude et dolo, sententias dixerunt. Quod dico propter Concilia Ariminense et Chalce- donense, . qua; fraude non caruerunt ; nam in Ariminensi deceptos fuisse Catholicos ver¬ bi Graeci obscuritate, testatur Ruffinus lib. X. c. 21 . in Chalcedonensi autem fuisse fraudem, patet ex act. 16. ejus Concilii, ubi Vicarii Romani Pontificis conqueruntur, quod se absentibus fraudulenter factum esset illud decretum. Dico secundo, Praesidem Concilii, ut Prae- sidem, debere sequi ut decreto formando majorem partem suffragiorum, tamen Pon¬ tificem, non ut Praesidem, sed ut Principem Ecclesiae summum posse retractare illud ju¬ dicium; et consequenter, si ipse sit Praeses Concilii, posse, non ut Praesidem, sed ut Principem summum, non sequi majorem partem, quemadmodum in temporalibus ju¬ diciis debet Praeses a Rege constitutus, se¬ qui majorem partem Judicum, tamen Rex, tanquam Superior, potest totum judicium ir¬ ritare. Et hoc maxime locum habet in Pon¬ tifice, cujus est confirmare, et dirigere fra¬ tres suos, et ad hoc habet assistentium Spi¬ ritus sancti, ne erret, juxta illud Lucae XXII : Rogavi pro te etc (1). Vide Joannem de Tur- recremata lib. III. cap. 63 et 64, et Canum lib. V. cap. 5, quaest. 2.